[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Remaining open issues for RFC-2401bis
>
>
> >>>>> "VPNC" == VPNC <Paul> writes:
> VPNC> No, we don't. We have ways of encoding the display name and
> VPNC> the coments, but *not* the address itself (called the
> VPNC> "addr-spec"). RFC 822 and 2822 are completely clear on this.
>
> Ah, good point.
>
> >> 2) we could agree to permit UTF-8 in RFC822_ADDR.
>
> VPNC> Doing so and hoping that the Applications Area Directors don't
> VPNC> barf is like
>
> Fine. Point made.
> So, we need an identifier that can carry UTF-8, is known to carry
> UTF-8, and isn't ID_KEY_ID.
>
I hope this does not preclude ID_KEY_ID from carrying UTF-8 in an
opaque way. I think this is what Paul Koning mentioned in an earlier mail.
thanks
mohan
> - --
> ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [
> ] Michael Richardson, Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
> ] mcr@xelerance.com http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
> ] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Finger me for keys
>
> iQCVAwUBQGGfVYqHRg3pndX9AQFS0gP/REqyJFEuHwEdd84mjKL7eVu8OZ94VcB3
> QXNT18Tvzt/nGAoxqUbXv6IK11TMTbqC0uqR/kKm/Opuxa4OUNSKmvMUuiujufEe
> fSPZ8LuBzoZe/xX+v6LUQsb4jky7oTxy2jFX6lg6qpc542ZpXrlZsEMYzPJFN/iA
> KPtMeVAsWX0=
> =7eGq
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----